BLENDING HUGHES, III, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Brookings v. Hunzinger Constr. & Aetna Life & Cas., 512 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
  …ugh October of 1985, because the parties stipulated that benefits had been paid for each of those months, the amount was uncontroverted, and claimant’s work search was not challenged at the hearing. See United Telephone Company of Florida v. Wooten, 468 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse the deputy’s order as to the reduction in wage-loss benefits for the months of June, 1985 through October, 1985. REVERSED. BOOTH, C.J., and JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.…
• Dump ALL, Inc. v. Grossman, 475 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
  …g, ar-guendo, that Dr. Grossman may bring himself within Section 440.34, the fact that we find the deputy’s award of Dr. Grossman’s medical bills in error would preclude recovery of any attorney's fees. United Telephone Company of Florida v. Wooten, 468 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Likewise, in light of our disposition of this case, the deputy erred in assessing costs against the E/C. See, Section 440.32, Florida Statutes (1981). REVERSED. SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . See, Section 440.10(1…
• Castro v. Fellsmere Mgmt. & Nationwide Ins. Co., 589 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
  …that since there was no dispute concerning claimant’s status as PTD, the JCC lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The E/C relies on the cases Ardmore Farms v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); United Tel. Co. of Florida v. Wooten, 468 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Sperry Remington Office Machines v. Stelling, 383 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The E/C acknowledges, however, that there was a dispute between the parties concerning when the claimant became entitled to supplemental bene…

Authorities Cited

• Lightfoot v. State, 459 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)